I am afraid I cannot see how exactly they are equivalent. i386 uses a docker i386 image and toolchain. Actually, we are using what you suggested here: salsa/support#222 (comment 176921)
Maybe for most of the packages both build jobs produce similar results. But the build-i386 job may catch issues even for arch: all packages. E.g.: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2020/09/msg00269.html
Making this job non-default would make it difficulty to identify related problems.
@waldi Your authoritative tone "you have to loose one" is really not productive. Giving orders between volunteers is really not the way to go. When you use your powers of salsa admins, I expect from you to behave in a more comprehensive manner and explain why something must change.
Bastian Blankchanged title from Runs to equivalent build jobs by default to Runs multiple equivalent build jobs by default
changed title from Runs to equivalent build jobs by default to Runs multiple equivalent build jobs by default
Hi @waldi . Thanks for rewording the issue. I really hope we could have better comunication.
I understand the "removing one of the two jobs allows running 2x builds" but I don't think that's entirely true. The pipeline consists on more than 2 jobs so the difference that removing one can make is not 100%.
Are we running out of cloud money? Are we hitting/close to any limit that would require us to reduce the workload?
I wanna insist on what @santiago commented: Asuming that one package might be more or less sensitive to a failure would also apply to any other job like reprotest, lintian, autopkgtest once it's green. I don't think that really matches the CI definition.
I want to help reducing the load on the system as much as logically possible, but let's keep in mind what the whole idea of this thing is.
Please, can you provide us more information so we understand the reasons for this request?